NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO vs.

SERAFIN HIDALGO
Posted on July 1, 2013 by winnieclaire
Standard
G.R. No. L-42334 October 31, 1936
Facts: North Negros Sugar Co. (NNSC) is the owner of a site known as the mill site.
It is where its sugar central, with its factory building and residence for its employees
and laborers are located. It also owns the adjoining sugar plantation known as
Hacienda Begoa. Across its properties NNSC constructed a road connecting the
mill site with the provincial highway. Through this road it allowed vehicles to pass
upon payment of a toll charge of P0.15 for each truck or automobile. Pedestrians
are allowed free passage through it.
Immediately adjoining the above-mentioned mill site of the NNSC is the hacienda
of Luciano Aguirre, known as Hacienda Sagay, where the Hidalgo has a billiard
hall and a tuba saloon. Like other people in and about the place, Hidalgo used to
pass through the said road of the NNSC because it was his only means of access to
the Hacienda Sagay. Later on, by order of the NNSC , every time that the Hidalgo
passed driving his automobile with a cargo of tuba plaintiff ,the gatekeeper would
stop him and prevent him from passing through said road. Hidalgo in such cases
merely deviated from said road and continued on his way to Hacienda Sagay
across the fields of Hacienda Begoa, likewise belonging to the NNSC.
Issue: Whether or not NNSC can enjoin Hidalgo from passing the property.
Ruling: NO.
We, therefore, have the case of an easement of way voluntarily constituted in favor
of a community. Civil Code articles 531 and 594 read:
ART. 531. Easements may also be established for the benefit of one or more persons
or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong.
xxxxxxxxx
ART. 594. The owner of an estate may burden it with such easements as he may
deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable, provided he
does not violate the law or public order.
As may be seen from the language of article 594, in cases of voluntary easement,
the owner is given ample liberty to establish them: as he may deem fit, and in such
manner and form as he may consider desirable. The plaintiff considered it
desirable to open this road to the public in general, without imposing any condition
save the payment of a fifteen-centavo toll by motor vehicles, and it may not now go
back on this and deny the existence of an easement.Voluntary easements under
article 594 are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner. If he
exacts any condition, like the payment of a certain indemnity for the use of the
easement, any person who is willing to pay it may make use of the easement. If the

contention be made that a contract is necessary, it may be stated that a contract

exits from the time all those who desire to make use of the easement are disposed
to pay the required indemnity.The plaintiff contends that the easement of way is
intermittent in nature and can only be acquired by virtue of a title under article 539.
The defendant, however, does not lay claim to it by prescription. The title in this
case consists in the fact that the plaintiff has offered the use of this road to the
general public upon payment of a certain sum as passage fee in case of motor
vehicles.
The cases of Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Roxas (22 Phil., 450), and
Cuaycong vs. Benedicto (37 Phil., 781), are not controlling, as there the attempt was
to establish that the right to an easement of way had been acquired by prescription.
Here defendants contention is, that while the road in question remains open to the
public, he has a right to its use upon paying the passage fees required by the
plaintiff. Indeed the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed
when the easement was voluntarily constituted, but while the road is thrown open,
the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use.
Furthermore, plaintiffs evidence discloses the existence of a forcible right of way in
favor of the owner and occupants of the Hacienda Sagay under the Civil Code,
article 564, because, according to said evidence, those living in Hacienda Sagay
have no access to the provincial road except thru the road in question.